PDA

View Full Version : Havel on Favre



HarveyWallbangers
10-17-2006, 12:25 AM
He actually wrote a pretty good article IMHO.

Chris Havel column: At bye, good-bye to Favre fallacies

The Green Bay Packers' bye offered a welcome respite on several fronts.

I wasn't required to place blame for a loss. I didn't have to sift through postgame comments, and separate the reasons from the excuses. I wasn't subjected to poor substitution patterns, 12 men on the field, would-be interceptions or blown assignments.

I didn't have to use the words "Schottenheimer" and "inept" in the same sentence.

Best of all, I didn't have to endure Brett Favre bashing on a local or national level.

The prevailing misconception is Favre's presence in the starting lineup is retarding, handcuffing and hurting the Packers' ability to rebuild. I have heard Favre described as "selfish," "washed up" and "over the hill." I have seen him labeled as the problem, rather than the solution.

That kind of talk is getting older than Favre.

There are those in the national media calling for the Packers to trade Favre to a team willing to acquire a 37-year-old quarterback in return for a high draft pick or two. When a team makes such an offer, and I would be surprised, I gladly will expound.

Meantime, I will settle for destroying a fallacy.

Favre is playing at a reasonably high level. If he weren't, the national media wouldn't be calling for his trade. They would be demanding his benching.

They would note Favre's streak of consecutive starts shouldn't take precedence over the team's chance to win.

They would whine that Favre's proximity to Dan Marino's record for most touchdown passes in a career (420 to 403) should be secondary to the Packers' development of No. 2 quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

Those words are penned, the speeches written and the rants cued up. The trouble is, Favre isn't ready to stand down. Nor should he be.

To say he is stunting the team's rebuilding is to neglect Greg Jennings' development. The rookie receiver has burst onto the NFL scene in a big way. He is playing with an old pro's savvy and a young man's legs. He is making Favre look good, and vice-versa, which is the way it is supposed to be between a quarterback and his receivers.

The offensive line is improving each week, despite a guard rotation that features rookies Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz and Tony Moll. Go ahead. Ask them if Favre's presence in the huddle inspires confidence. Ask them if Favre's accomplishments motivate them to play their best.

Favre's experience and ability give the Packers a chance to be competitive. In turn, that gives the defense and special teams added incentive to compete to their fullest.

With the game on the line, rookie linebacker A.J. Hawk is going to do whatever it takes to make the play. With the game on the line, kicker Dave Rayner and punter Jon Ryan are going to be tested, and the coverage and return units are going to sell out.

Rodgers is the only player whose development is being placed on hold. If he is unhappy, I don't sense it. If he is impatient, I don't see it. Rodgers knows his time will come when Favre is ready to leave, or when he proves himself the better quarterback.

Today, neither is true.

Bretsky
10-17-2006, 01:14 AM
Good article and a lot of good points; thanks for posting it Harv

Chester Marcol
10-17-2006, 11:35 AM
Thanks for the post Harv.

Unless this was absalutely known 100% to be Favre's last year, then I would be more open to getting Rodgers more playing time. For one of the reasons Favre came back, Simms saying he should play until they drag him off the field, my gut tells me that Favre will be around another couple years to help this team make a push deep into the playoffs before he hangs em up. This is Favre's offense. It's just as important for him to keep jelling as well if in fact he plans on sticking around another season or two.

I agree that Favre is a main reason why our team will still play and be competative, like last year, even tho we weren't winning and the season was over. Who knows if Rodgers would come in and stink it up with his learning curve. I just feel the odds are greater things would spiral out of control pretty fast with such a young team if Favre wasn't atleast starting the game and playing until we knew we had no chance to win or lose.

As far as the development of Rodgers. Do these genius writers forget about the number of young QB's that come into the league only to get beat up and demorilized because they are on a bad team? Nothing would be better for the development of Rodgers than have him take over a playoff caliber team. Do you think Brady or Rothlesburger would be a top 10 QB if they happen to be on a team like the Lions or any one of the other crappy teams? They both got to take over a team that was already pretty good and on the rise. I'll take that route to develop a young QB rather than force it upon him like these wannabe experts are yelling for with Rodgers.

I think, if our defense wasn't giving up 20-30+ points a game as stupid of a statement as that is, we would be closer to the top of the division than the bottom. The offense has played well enough for us to atleast be 3-2 and will continue to improve as the year rolls on and we could have been looking at the building of a playoff team. If nothing else, building momentum for next year, but alas, that was not meant to be. The Lambeau advantage begins and ends with defense. The outside world would rather focus on Favre than the real problem.

esoxx
10-17-2006, 04:53 PM
Do these genius writers forget about the number of young QB's that come into the league only to get beat up and demorilized because they are on a bad team?

The "genius" Packer fans out there trashin' Favre would also be wise to get a clue as well.